Key Cases

Welcome to this curated shortlist of pivotal Canadian legal cases, designed to serve as a starting point for law students and legal enthusiasts. These summaries aim to provide a quick snapshot of landmark decisions across various areas of law, from Constitutional Law to Employment Law.

Disclaimer

1. Not legal advice:

the information provided here is not legal advice. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. Seek professional advice for your specific legal needs.

2. Not comprehensive:

these summaries are not exhaustive and only capture the main points of each case, in my opinion. They are meant to offer a brief overview and should not replace a thorough reading and understanding of the full case. If you’re looking for guidance on how to brief a case effectively, refer to my concise guide on how to read and brief cases.

3. Updates and changes:

laws change, and case law evolves. I cannot guarantee that this list will be updated to reflect new developments or overturned decisions. Conduct your own research and keep your case notes updated.

Constitutional Law

• R v Oakes (1986)

• Facts: David Oakes was charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. Under Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, once possession was proven, the accused had to prove he was not in possession for the purpose of trafficking.
• Issue: Is Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act inconsistent with the Charter’s Section 11(d) presumption of innocence?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Oakes Test for Section 1 justification under the Charter.
• Rationale: The law was not a reasonable limit on Charter rights.

• Ford v Quebec (1988)

• Facts: Quebec passed a law making French the only language for outdoor signs.
• Issue: Does the law violate freedom of expression?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Laws that restrict freedom of expression must be justified.
• Rationale: The law was not justified under Section 1 of the Charter.
• Dissent/Concurrence: None

• Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia (1989)

• Facts: Andrews, a non-citizen, was denied the ability to practise law in British Columbia.
• Issue: Does the law discriminate based on citizenship?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Discrimination based on citizenship is not allowed unless justifiable.
• Rationale: The law was not justified under Section 1 of the Charter.

• R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985)

• Facts: Big M Drug Mart was charged for opening on Sundays, violating the Lord’s Day Act.
• Issue: Does the Lord’s Day Act violate freedom of religion?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Laws must not infringe upon freedom of religion.
• Rationale: The Act imposed Christian observances, violating the Charter.

• Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217

• Facts: The Supreme Court was asked to advise on the legality of Quebec’s unilateral secession.
• Issue: Can Quebec secede from Canada unilaterally?
• Holding: No.
• Rule of Law: Unilateral secession is not legal under the Constitution.
• Rationale: Secession would require a constitutional amendment. A clear majority on a clear question in Quebec would, however, oblige the rest of Canada to negotiate.

Criminal Law

• R v Morgentaler (1988)

• Facts: Doctors were charged for performing abortions outside of hospitals, contrary to the Criminal Code.
• Issue: Does the Criminal Code’s abortion provision violate a woman’s right to security of the person under Section 7 of the Charter?
• Holding: Yes. Section 251 of the Criminal Code violated Section 7 and was not saved by Section 1.
• Rule of Law: Security of the person includes control over one’s bodily integrity free from state interference.
• Rationale: The provision created risks to women’s health and thus violated their right to security of the person.
• Dissent/Concurrence: The majority struck the law down in three separate sets of reasons (Dickson CJ, Beetz J and Wilson J). McIntyre J (with La Forest J) dissented.

• R v Keegstra (1990)

• Facts: Keegstra, a teacher, was charged for promoting hate speech.
• Issue: Does the law violate freedom of expression?
• Holding: Yes, but it is justified under Section 1. The hate-promotion offence infringed Section 2(b) of the Charter but was upheld 4-3 as a reasonable limit.
• Rule of Law: Limitations on freedom of expression can be justified.
• Rationale: The law aims to prevent harm to targeted groups.

• R v Sharpe (2001)

• Facts: Sharpe was charged with possession of child pornography.
• Issue: Does the law violate freedom of expression?
• Holding: Yes, but it is largely justified under Section 1. The possession offence infringed Section 2(b) of the Charter but was upheld, with two narrow exceptions read in: material the accused created alone and kept for personal use, and private recordings of lawful sexual activity involving the accused, kept for personal use.
• Rule of Law: Limitations on freedom of expression can be justified.
• Rationale: Protecting children from exploitation is a valid reason.

• R v Grant (2009)

• Facts: Grant was stopped by police and found to be carrying a firearm.
• Issue: Was the evidence admissible despite being obtained through detention?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Evidence may be admissible if it doesn’t bring the justice system into disrepute.
• Rationale: The evidence was reliable and the violation was not egregious.

• R v Stinchcombe (1991)

• Facts: Stinchcombe was charged with criminal breach of trust and theft. The Crown withheld evidence from the defence.
• Issue: Is the Crown obligated to disclose all evidence to the defence?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Full disclosure by the Crown is necessary for a fair trial.
• Rationale: The right to make full answer and defence is one of the pillars of criminal justice.

• R v Jordan (2016)

• Facts: Jordan was charged with drug offences, but his trial was delayed.
• Issue: Does an unreasonable delay in bringing a case to trial violate the accused’s rights?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Unreasonable delay violates the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
• Rationale: The delay was beyond the acceptable limit, infringing on the accused’s Charter rights.

Contract

• Hadley v Baxendale (1854)

• Facts: Hadley’s mill was inoperable due to a broken crankshaft. Baxendale, the carrier, delayed delivering it for repair, so the mill stayed shut longer and Hadley lost profits.
• Issue: Is Baxendale liable for the lost profits caused by the delay?
• Holding: No.
• Rule of Law: Damages are limited to losses arising naturally from the breach, or that were in the reasonable contemplation of both parties when the contract was made.
• Rationale: Baxendale was not told that the mill depended on the shaft, so the lost profits were not foreseeable to him at the time of contracting.

• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)

• Facts: Carbolic Smoke Ball Co promised £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using their product. Carlill did and claimed the reward.
• Issue: Is the company’s promise enforceable?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Unilateral contracts can be binding if there is an intention to create legal relations.
• Rationale: The company made a clear promise with the intent to be legally bound.

• Bank of America Canada v Mutual Trust Co (2002)

• Facts: Mutual Trust refused to advance mortgage financing it had committed to for a condominium project. Bank of America, the construction lender, sued for breach of contract.
• Issue: Can a court award compound interest as part of damages for breach of contract?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Contract damages should put the plaintiff in the position it would have been in had the contract been performed, which can include compound interest.
• Rationale: Compound interest reflects the time value of money. Simple interest would under-compensate the plaintiff and let the party in breach profit from it.

• Tercon Contractors Ltd. v British Columbia (2010)

• Facts: British Columbia accepted a highway construction bid that, under the tender terms, came from an ineligible bidder. Tercon, an eligible bidder, sued for breach of the tendering contract.
• Issue: Does the exclusion clause in the tender documents bar Tercon’s claim?
• Holding: No.
• Rule of Law: The doctrine of fundamental breach was laid to rest and replaced with a three-step test for exclusion clauses: (1) properly interpreted, does the clause apply to the circumstances? (2) if so, was it unconscionable when the contract was made? (3) if not, is there an overriding public policy reason not to enforce it?
• Rationale: Properly interpreted, the clause did not cover the province’s breach (considering a bid from an ineligible bidder), so Tercon won. The Court split 5-4 on applying the test, but all nine judges agreed on the framework.

• Bhasin v Hrynew (2014)

• Facts: Can-Am misled Bhasin about its plans and then declined to renew his dealership agreement, causing him financial loss.
• Issue: Is there a duty of good faith in contractual performance?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Good faith is an organizing principle of contract law, and parties owe a duty of honest contractual performance.
• Rationale: Promotes fairness and predictability in contracts. Can-Am breached the duty by being dishonest with Bhasin.

• Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp (2014)

• Facts: Sattva Capital claimed a finder’s fee based on a contract with Creston Moly.
• Issue: Is Sattva entitled to the finder’s fee?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Contracts should be interpreted based on the parties’ intentions, read in light of the surrounding circumstances. Contractual interpretation is generally a question of mixed fact and law.
• Rationale: The contract’s language and context supported Sattva’s claim.

Tort Law

• Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co (1928) (US case from New York, often taught for comparison)

• Facts: Palsgraf was injured due to the actions of a railroad guard helping a passenger.
• Issue: Is the railroad liable for injuries to Palsgraf?
• Holding: No.
• Rule of Law: Liability in negligence requires foreseeability of harm.
• Rationale: The railroad could not have foreseen harm to Palsgraf from the guard’s actions.

• Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) (This is a UK case but foundational in Canadian tort law)

• Facts: Mrs. Donoghue fell ill after drinking a ginger beer that had a decomposed snail in it.
• Issue: Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of a product?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers.
• Rationale: There was a foreseeable risk of harm.

• Childs v Desormeaux (2006)

• Facts: Childs was injured by Desormeaux, who was driving drunk after leaving a party.
• Issue: Are social hosts liable for the actions of their intoxicated guests?
• Holding: No.
• Rule of Law: Social hosts do not owe a duty of care to third parties injured by their intoxicated guests.
• Rationale: The hosts did not create a risk; they merely failed to act to reduce the risk created by Desormeaux.

• Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007)

• Facts: Hill was wrongfully convicted after a flawed police investigation, and sued the police for negligence.
• Issue: Can police be held liable for negligence in criminal investigations?
• Holding: Yes, the tort of negligent investigation exists in Canada. But Hill’s claim failed on the facts.
• Rule of Law: Police owe suspects a duty of care in investigating them. The standard is that of a reasonable police officer in similar circumstances.
• Rationale: Policy concerns did not negate the duty of care. However, although the investigation was flawed, the officers’ conduct met the reasonable officer standard, so they were not negligent.

Property

• Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997)

• Facts: The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed ownership of land in British Columbia.
• Issue: Do the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples have a claim to the land based on aboriginal title?
• Holding: A new trial was ordered, so title was not declared. But the Court set out what Aboriginal title is and how it is proven.
• Rule of Law: Aboriginal title is a right protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It is proven by exclusive occupation of the land at the time of Crown sovereignty.
• Rationale: The trial had errors (including improperly combining the individual House claims), and oral histories must be given weight as evidence.

• Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd (2019)

• Facts: A bankrupt oil and gas company left behind orphan wells, and the trustee disclaimed responsibility for the environmental liabilities.
• Issue: Can a trustee disclaim responsibility for environmental cleanup?
• Holding: No.
• Rule of Law: Bankruptcy does not absolve a company from its environmental obligations.
• Rationale: The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not permit a trustee to avoid environmental obligations.

Administrative

Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999)

• Facts: Baker had lived in Canada without status for 11 years and had four Canadian-born children. Facing deportation, she applied to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and an immigration officer refused.
• Issue: Was Baker denied procedural fairness?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: The content of procedural fairness varies with the context (the “Baker factors”). Reasons may be required, and decision-makers must be free of a reasonable apprehension of bias.
• Rationale: The officer’s notes raised a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the decision did not properly consider the best interests of her children.

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick (2008)

• Facts: Dunsmuir was dismissed from his employment with the New Brunswick government and sought judicial review.
• Issue: What is the appropriate standard of review in administrative law?
• Holding: Reasonableness.
• Rule of Law: Introduced a simplified standard of review framework with two standards: correctness and reasonableness.
• Rationale: To clarify the law of judicial review.
• Note: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 replaced the Dunsmuir framework. Under Vavilov, reasonableness is the presumptive standard of review. Learn Dunsmuir for context, but apply Vavilov.

Family Law

Moge v Moge (1992)

• Facts: After divorce, Mrs. Moge, who had been a homemaker during the marriage, struggled to support herself. Mr. Moge applied to end her spousal support.
• Issue: Can spousal support be ended simply because the recipient should be self-sufficient by now?
• Holding: No. Her support continued.
• Rule of Law: Self-sufficiency is only one objective of spousal support under the Divorce Act. Support can compensate for the economic disadvantages a spouse suffers from the marriage and its breakdown.
• Rationale: The Divorce Act allows for such considerations, and a “sink or swim” approach ignores the lasting economic effects of the roles spouses take on during marriage.

Young v Young (1993)

• Facts: After divorce, Mr. Young was granted access to his children. The trial judge barred him from discussing his religion with them during visits.
• Issue: Can the court restrict the father’s religious discussions during access visits?
• Holding: Not on these facts. The restrictions were set aside.
• Rule of Law: The best interests of the child are paramount in access decisions. Absent a risk of harm to the child, an access parent may share their religious beliefs with the child.
• Rationale: There was no evidence that the father’s religious discussions harmed the children, and children benefit from knowing both parents as they are.

Pettkus v Becker (1980)

• Facts: A common-law couple accumulated assets, but only the man’s name was on the title.
• Issue: Is the woman entitled to a share of the assets?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Unjust enrichment occurs when one party benefits at the expense of another without legal reason.
• Rationale: The woman contributed to the accumulation of assets, making it unjust for her to receive nothing.

M v H (1999)

• Facts: A same-sex couple separated, and one partner sought spousal support.
• Issue: Are same-sex couples entitled to spousal support?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not permissible under the Charter.
• Rationale: The existing law was discriminatory and needed to be amended to include same-sex couples.

Environmental

Friends of the Oldman River Society v Canada (1992)

• Facts: Alberta built a dam on the Oldman River. The project needed a federal approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which was granted without a federal environmental assessment.
• Issue: Did the federal environmental assessment guidelines apply to the federal approval of a provincial project?
• Holding: Yes. The federal Guidelines Order was binding and applied to the approval.
• Rule of Law: Federal environmental assessment requirements apply where a project needs a federal decision in an area of federal responsibility, here navigation and fisheries.
• Rationale: The environment is not a single head of power. Both levels of government can regulate it within their own areas of jurisdiction, so the federal government could assess the environmental effects relevant to its own decision.

114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v Hudson (Town) (2001)

• Facts: The town of Hudson passed a bylaw restricting the use of pesticides.
• Issue: Does the town have the authority to restrict pesticide use?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Municipalities have the power to pass bylaws for the health and well-being of their residents.
• Rationale: The bylaw was a valid exercise of the town’s powers under the Cities and Towns Act.

Imperial Oil Ltd v Quebec (Minister of the Environment) (2003)

• Facts: Quebec’s Minister of the Environment ordered Imperial Oil to pay for a study and decontamination of a polluted site it had once operated. The government itself was facing lawsuits over the same contamination.
• Issue: Was the Minister in a conflict of interest that breached procedural fairness?
• Holding: No.
• Rule of Law: The content of procedural fairness depends on context. A minister exercising administrative and political functions is not held to the impartiality standard of a judge.
• Rationale: The Minister was applying environmental protection legislation in the public interest, not acting on a personal interest, so there was no disqualifying conflict.

Intellectual

Harvard College v Canada (2002)

• Facts: Harvard College sought a patent for a genetically modified mouse.
• Issue: Can higher life forms be patented?
• Holding: No.
• Rule of Law: Higher life forms are not patentable.
• Rationale: Ethical and social policy considerations.

Employment

Machtinger v HOJ Industries (1992)

• Facts: Machtinger’s employment was terminated without reasonable notice.
• Issue: Is an employment contract clause that violates employment standards enforceable?
• Holding: No.
• Rule of Law: Contract clauses that violate statutory minimums are void.
• Rationale: The clause violated the Employment Standards Act, making it unenforceable.

McKinley v BC Tel (2001)

• Facts: McKinley was dismissed for dishonesty.
• Issue: Is dishonesty always a ground for dismissal?
• Holding: No.
• Rule of Law: Context matters in determining if dishonesty is a ground for dismissal.
• Rationale: A contextual approach is more fair.

Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd (1997)

• Facts: Wallace was dismissed without cause and without reasonable notice.
• Issue: Can damages for bad faith in the manner of dismissal be awarded?
• Holding: Yes.
• Rule of Law: Employers owe a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal.
• Rationale: The manner of Wallace’s dismissal caused him mental distress, warranting additional damages.
• Note: Honda Canada Inc v Keays, 2008 SCC 39 changed how these damages are awarded. Instead of extending the notice period (the “Wallace bump”), courts now award damages for the actual harm caused by the manner of dismissal, and the employee must prove that harm. Learn Wallace for context, but apply Honda v Keays.